Thread

“If the developers are shown to be able to censor, then they will become required to censor.” Andreas the GOAT. He’s the reason I got started in the first place, and this is the final word on the debate as far as I’m concerned. Running Bitcoin Core 30. Not sorry, GFY.

Replies (45)

↩ replying to Keith Meola
Thank you! Wasn’t sure; context to the video wasn’t clear to me with regard to specifics. But that makes sense. Not a fan of adjusting defaults, but there is no clear option other than this. The other “options” available are to support a project with one ideological developer or stagnate. It’d be nice if there were more versions with deeper development base, but there aren’t. Just not going to wear a v30 button. That doesn’t make any sense either. 😔
🛡️
↩ replying to npub10lrz...s9ug
I tend to agree. 444 though may as well have been written with a crayon. It's ineffective, confiscatory, and generally sloppy, and frankly I think it's gotten far more attention than it deserves given that it has a snowflake's chance in hell of success. Frankly I'd have expected better from Luke, but he and many here seem to be operating reactively and motivated by fear. I do hope they get their wits about them because as much as I think libbitcoin is good for my needs it's not anywhere near fit to be a majority of nodes give some of the design decisions, and so far nothing else is. And meanwhile both Core and Knots are in trouble if the UTXO set isn't kept in check. Op_return isn't nearly the hazard other spam is in that regard (and arguably does aim at harm reduction, which was always its point), but Knots has sought to address both (which is why I started running it BEFORE the drama). The issue is that the witness discount still incentivizes what amounts to vandalism, and I've not yet seen a truly effective and coherent proposal for really dealing with this.
The size limits are censorship argument is retarded. Transaction size limits still exist in v30 mempool policy. Blocksize limits still exist in consensus rules. I'll assume he's talking about censoring non-monetary data via bip444. The argument that if you "censor" (block non-monetary data) now, you will be forced to censor other things (OFAC?) is also retarded. That only works if there's one node implementation and everyone blindly upgrades it. Node runners choose to not upgrade or to switch implementations, as we have recently seen. If Core v31 had OFAC censorship we would fork off. Andreas knows this.
Imo it’s not a matter of censorship. Core 30 changed and increased data limits and sizes that were set in the original code. It’s like trying to alter the US constitution in an attempt to “modernize” it. There’s some things that best left alone. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty firm on that belief.
I would expect nothing less from an ethereum promoter. Why even put a 100k limit? Let's go big! Let's do 1TB op_returns. Or even better, let's put infinite size op_returns. If an op_return limit is censorship, we've had censorship for a long time in bitcoin. The pruning argument is really bad too. That means no archival nodes. That means no electrum servers too. Really bad takes. But he's been doing those for a long time now.
↩ replying to jgbtc
i can imagine myself in similar shoes to his in a different timeline. sometimes you forget to question yourself when you keep seeing others around as dumb. it puts you in a rabbit hole of bad ideas. and you dont realize until the things you caused touches you back. and then its a long journey getting out of the hole. many has a midwit era. but if you are stuck there as a middle aged man, then that's a problem. not to mention nothing he says in the video makes sense in the context of reality, and what things are. you can stop him multiple times while he talks and correct him. everything he says built on false information that's also built on false information, and some are built on to each recursively.